Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Recently, the California Attorney General filed a preliminary injunction in its case against St. Joseph Health in Eureka. As a refresher, this is a case springing from St. Joseph's denying Anna Nustlock an emergency abortion in February last year when she started hemorrhaging in the 15th week of her pregnancy and sent her away with a bucket and a towel to receive emergency care elsewhere.
Another case similar in nature has since been filed by the California AG against the hospital involving a Jane Rowe. But for a while now, these two cases have sort of taken a back seat to a more recent development where St. Joseph claims the hospital should be exempt from carrying out emergency abortions owing to freedom of religion. Local reporter Ryan Hudson has been reporting on this case for kmat, and we have her on the line. So, Ryan, before we get into the latest developments, remind us what happened the last time the two sides met in front of Judge Timothy Canning in Eureka.
[00:01:00] Speaker B: So at the end of August, the California Attorney General's office was responding to a motion filed by St. Joseph Providence Health, which wanted to modify the existing stipulation and agreement which essentially mandated that the hospital continue to comply with the California emergency services law.
[00:01:25] Speaker A: And that law says a hospital must provide emergency services to anyone experiencing a medical emergency. How did the judge rule on that order?
[00:01:34] Speaker B: That order was upheld. After that, that hearing, when the dust settled, the judge had basically said to the Attorney General's office, circle back to that motion for a preliminary injunction, get that filed, and sort of start the ball rolling all over again in terms of litigating for the first time, actually, or where indeed, St. Joe's has overstepped in terms of religious doctrine trumping California law. Or alternatively, if the Attorney General's office is incorrect in asserting that St. Joseph has neglected its duty to provide emergency services to pregnant women, particularly here in Humboldt County.
[00:02:23] Speaker A: And now that preliminary injunction has been filed by the AG and what does it say?
[00:02:27] Speaker B: They're doubling down on that request to hold the hospital accountable to California's existing emergency services law. That is still part of the request. But this time there's another element involved in their request with this preliminary injunction specific to new language offered by St. Joe's at that previous hearing, St. Joe's had supplied pieces of information for the court to consider, one of which was a letter submitted from Reverend Robert F. Vasa, Bishop of Santa Rosa. The Bishop of Santa Rosa stated unequivocally in this letter regarding this particular case that the the hospital is only permitted to perform abortions where doing so is, quote, unquote, the only alternative to certain death of both the mother and the child, unquote. In this latest motion for a preliminary injunction, that specific language is being referenced by the Attorney General's office and is noted to be outside of the scope of the Emergency Services law. So the Attorney General's office is asking the, the court to weigh in on whether or not this is an appropriate standard of care in regard to specifically emergency pregnancy care and abortion care when that is deemed necessary by a doctor.
[00:04:04] Speaker A: Before we go into the hospital's take on all this, it's important to remind our listeners that the Emergency Services law says that a medical establishment must treat an individual if their health is in serious jeopardy, in danger of suffering serious impairment to bodily functions or dysfunction of any body organ or part.
Now, this is, of course, far less restrictive than the Bishop's letter which states that the emergency abortion can only be permitted if the patient and child are both facing certain death. So, Ryan, what we have here is essentially a church versus state debate. Which one has greater authority. And St. Joseph's is saying that the dictates of the church overrule the dictates of the state.
[00:04:48] Speaker B: That's part of their claim as far as freedom of religion.
That's part of their, their defense against this, this request that they comply with the Emergency Services law. Part of their logic is that they lean on the, the directives of the Catholic Church and specifically the ethical directives generated and approved by Robert Vasa, Bishop of Santa Rosa, in response to things that were said and filed at the August hearing.
Now, the Attorney General is also clarifying their stance that, that the hospital cannot be and legally should not be operating under religious doctrine as, as a priority in this motion for a preliminary injunction. In that section, the Attorney General writes that, and I'm quoting from the document here, St. Joseph Hospital's policy has the hospital second guess the professional judgment of treating physicians in an emergency situation, no less, and actually prohibits doctors from implementing the standard of care in many cases.
And then further explains that church autonomy does not apply here.
[00:06:19] Speaker A: You were in court in August, the last time the two sides squared off about this. Did you get any sense of what Judge Canning thought of the hospital's argument?
[00:06:28] Speaker B: It appeared to me that the judge is taking that argument seriously, of course, in regard to freedom of religion.
But, but I think that he had questions. And so hopefully at this next hearing, which takes place on December 10, I think that he'll be wanting to, to pin down some answers from St. Joseph Hospital in regard to that argument. I think that the judge will want some further information regarding what the attorney general may be able to glean from further discovery, because at the August hearing, there was some discussion at the end of that hearing regarding a delay in production of discovery materials from the hospital to the attorney general's office. And the judge seemed to be not that concerned with that delay, but sort of directed the parties to kind of get on with it and just get the ball rolling in terms of providing that additional information.
[00:07:30] Speaker A: Thank you, Ryan, for your update on this case. And we will, of course, bring our listeners an update on what happens in Court on December 10th.
[00:07:38] Speaker B: Thank you so much. And I do hope to be there on the 10th and give you a report.
[00:07:43] Speaker A: That was Ryan Hudson, who runs the independent local news channel, Humboldt Freelance Reporting. My name is Segurbjorn, reporting for Kmart.
